Tbh I didn't like the film all that much. Not it that wasn't entertaining or overly terrible, but I liked the first film better. Still looking forward to the whole Avengers shtick Marvel's got planned.
Goddammit I was going to quote that. But yeah. We all feel inclined to take revenge on someone who's done harm to us at some point, but a lot of the time it just ends up spreading more harm to others, initiating more cycles of revenge, and overall just not getting anyone anywhere. I don't believe in an absolute justice, but even then I'd be inclined to separate ideas of justice from revenge.
I've only heard a few of her singles, but if they're any indication, she's okay. Some of her singles are catchy and she's not a bad performer, but overall I don't care for her too much.
I like some of his work, like the first Batman movie, Nightmare Before Christmas (although that's not really all his), Edward Scissorhands and even Sweeney Todd, but overall I think he's kind of a hack. I'm kinda tired of this gothtrash sameshit in every movie.
The messages are definitely nice, but actually reading it is a bit of a chore. There are plenty of ways to make the stories fun, though. See: Takes lots of liberties with the source material, sure, but I think the overall point gets through. I'm not even christian and I like this movie.
I think that, to some degree, preserving tradition is important. Some traditions are interesting part of nations' cultural identities, so attempting to keep them around isn't entirely bad. However, I don't think tradition should ever be prioritized over making people happy/suffer less.
Nah. On their knees is a pretty good place too.
Oh also, if you're dealing with a psycho/sociopath, they don't have any empathy whatsoever (and that's one of the things that governs how you treat others), so obviously they wouldn't be above hitting children if it benefited them or if the children got them particularly angry.
This is an interesting little thought experiment that I came across a while ago. Imagine the following scenario: a sizable group of people (let's say, 100,000), with representatives from just about every facet of society, is in immediate danger of coming to great harm, and most likely, death. You don't know any of these people at all, and as such are not attached to them whatsoever. You, due to whatever circumstances, are placed in a position where you can effectively save the lives of all these people. However, you find that there is a small but significant obstacle in your way: a misguided individual, who happens to be someone you know reasonably well and care for (a brother, a father, a mother, a longtime friend who's basically family, etc), who is, for whatever reason, preventing you from saving them. This scenario, give or take a few variations, is common enough in fiction; usually what happens is that, against all appearances and odds, the "hero" comes through and is able to avoid taking a life AND saves the people. However, let's assume that it's not like that here: you try everything possible given your means to save the people/dissuade the person trying to stop you, however it becomes clear to you that you only have two choices: kill the person, or let the people die (and for argument's sake, there is no alternative). What do you do?
Within any given society, there are standards and modes of conduct that are accepted, and these become the "norm". Anything that deviates from this is not considered "normal". Of course, each society, and even every person within a given society, has different ideas about what being "normal" is, so it's a pretty relative thing.
Do I think life exists outside of Earth? Considering how large the universe supposedly is, probably. Is it anything like life as we know it (as in, are aliens little green men or some bullshit like that)? Probably not.
People are seldom one or the other.
1984. It blew my mind.
Define "proven", please. Anyways, as has already been said, science is only completely incompatible with certain religious beliefs, like creationism. At the end of the day, you can believe whatever you want, but regarding my position in this debate, I think most people should at least respect the methodology of science and what it's helped accomplish even if they don't agree with every scientific finding ever. Science is an inescapable part of just about everyone's life, it's one of the cornerstones of modern society, the only reason any of us is using this forum at this very moment is due to scientific research and experimentation that allowed the creation of computers, the internet, etc. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it's one of the successful areas of human endeavor, and in regards to establishing truth claims, I don't really think we have anything much better right now. Additionally, I don't think anyone's rejection of either religious belief or scientific research has any value whatsoever if it's ill-founded. Case in point: with a google search you can find hundreds of creationist sites dedicated to the attempt of discrediting evolution, the Big Bang, old earth, and any other phenomenons science regards as true. Now, science does not encourage dogmatism in any way, criticism of any and all postulates is not unwelcome and even necessary for us to make progress, critical thinking is part of what makes science what it is. However, there is a difference between an informed, well-read, well-thought out critique of something, and just grasping at straws to try and prove a dogma. Most of these sites fall into the latter, many of them completely misrepresent science and spread rumors that should have been put to bed ages ago (ie we evolved from modern day apes, there is no proof for evolution, irreducible complexity somehow discredits evolution, etc). This would be the equivalent of someone trying to discredit the Bible by pointing out contradictions based on taking verses out of context. It's reprehensible, dishonest and does a disservice to both science and religion.
I don't care. It doesn't concern me, people can do whatever if it makes them happy.
And I have the same game on my DSTT, so I can vouch for this too. Most DS games don't have AP, it's mostly Square and Nintendo who have started putting it in their more recent games (ie FF Crystal Chronicles, 358/2 Days, Mario and Luigi 3, Spirit Tracks, etc). Just an FYI.
What definition of "life" are we using here? Like I already said, a fetus is alive at basically any time it's a fetus by the basic definition of the word, so really, I don't see why this is even a debate at all. The thing is that the fetus being alive doesn't really mean much by itself. Cancer cells are alive but we kill them. I'm not necessarily equating a fetus with cancer, but I don't think it's as simple as "it's alive, we shouldn't kill it". The real question we should be asking is, like I said before, if a fetus is a person who has rights.
Basically, like I said, you have to be interesting. This doesn't mean you can't and shouldn't be nice, but it does explain why some girls pick *******s over "nice guys": usually they don't have much more to them than that. *******s often have confidence and charisma, which is attractive.
Being nice is perfectly fine. Just don't let that be the extent of your personality, or you're not going to catch their interest. Be kind and thoughtful, but confident and charismatic.
